Many serious scholars doubt that the old Rosicrucians ever existed as an organized fraternity. I refer to the article Rosenkreuz in the “Handbuch der Freimaurerei” (Lenning), where this skeptical view is dominant. Other authors, on the contrary, believe in the existence of the old order and think that the freemasons who appeared in their present form in 1717 are the rosicrucians persisting, but with changed name. Joh. Gottl. Buhle, a contemporary of Nicolai, had already assumed that the rosicrucian Michael Maier introduced rosicrucianism into England, and that freemasonry began then especially with the coöperation of the Englishman Robert Fludd (1574-1637). Ferdinand Katsch warmly defended the actual existence of the old rosicrucian fraternity with arguments, some of which are disputed. He names with certainty a number of people as “true rosicrucians,” among them Julianus de Campis, Michael Maier, Robert Fludd, Frisius or Frizius, Comenius (Katch, p. 33). Rosicrucianism turned into freemasonry for practical reasons. As the most outstanding imposters represented themselves as rosicrucians this name was not conserved. The wrong was prevented, in that the true rosicrucians withdrew as such and assumed a different dress. Generally we imagine a different origin of freemasonry. We are accustomed to look for its beginnings in practical masonry, whose lodges can be traced back to the fourteenth century. The old unions of house builders were joined by persons who were not actual workers but lay members, through whom spiritual power was added to the lodges. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the old working masonry was transformed into the spiritual symbolical freemasonry, but with a continuance of its forms. At that time in London the building lodges had diminished to four. These were united on June 24 (St. John’s Day), 1717, and chose Anton Sayer for their grand master. That is the origin of Freemasonry as it exists to-day.